The
agenda was reviewed and approved with two additions: (1) the selection
of a slate of nominees for the upcoming vacancy on the Board; (2) Advisory
Council restructuring.

The
minutes of the meeting of June 29 in Boston and the teleconference of
October 7 were reviewed. The minutes were approved unanimously. The June
29 minutes are currently available online in the member section of ARIN's
website. The minutes from October 7 will be posted as well.

Selection
of Nominees for the Board

A request was made to have members of the Board, ARIN counsel, Dennis
Molloy, and nominee Cathy Wittbrodt (a nominee) absent themselves from
the room during deliberations. These individuals left the meeting temporarily.

Kim
Hubbard reminded the AC that she had raised a relevant issue regarding
Board terms of office. Prior to the meeting, Kim Hubbard had posed a question
to the AC mailing list concerning the possibility of Don Telage's resignation
and the issue of continuity. She had suggested that Ken Fockler, currently
serving a one year term of office as the replacement for Raymundo Vega,
might replace Don Telage and complete the second year of his term. Ken
Fockler had not submitted a nomination for himself for the current vacancy.
Kim Hubbard stated that the question as discussed on the mailing list
had drawn generally favorable comments. Cathy Wittbrodt returned to the
room for this part of the discussion.

After
some discussion of this question, and after noting that the discussion
on the mailing list had been brief and that ability of the AC was not
geared towards responding to policy questions requiring a quick answer,
the AC did not have a positive response to the issue of term exchanges.
John Klensin and others pointed out that the appearance of a self perpetuating
Board could be damaging to ARIN. Guy Middleton moved that the AC should
decline to comment on this issue and Michael Dillon seconded the motion.
Michael Dillon, Hank Kilmer, Guy Middleton and Jeremy Porter were in favor
of this motion with the rest of the AC opposed. The motion failed to carry.

John
Klensin then stated that the AC should not be making up procedures as
it goes along. Guy Middleton expressed concern that the AC members spend
too much time on procedural issues, when they should be advising on Internet
number policy. Alec Peterson said that the AC still needs to iron out
procedures. Hilarie Orman noted that the AC doesn't always record or follow
its own procedures.

John
Klensin made a motion to recommend to the Board of Trustees that they
do nothing that could be construed as creating new policy with regard
to the terms of Board members, and specifically that they not engage in
seat swapping or any other arrangements not provided for in the bylaws.
Hank Kilmer seconded this motion. In the vote that followed, Michael Dillon
was opposed, Guy Middleton and Jeremy Porter abstained and the rest of
the AC was in favor of this motion. The motion carried.

The
AC then returned to the consideration of nominees to be presented to the
Board and Cathy Wittbrodt was excused from the room. The initial slate
of nominees submitted included: Vincent Bono, Wayne Correia, Alan Hetzel,
Douglas Lattman, Eric Madison, Michael Straty, Cathy Wittbrodt and Dave
Wodelet. The qualifications of each nominee were discussed. Guy Middleton
made a motion to recommend Michael Straty to the Board of Trustees to
fill the open seat. Alec Peterson seconded the motion. In the vote that
followed, all were in favor with the exception of Hilarie Orman, who chose
to abstain, and Jeremy Porter, who was opposed. Following this vote, Board
of Trustees members, Cathy Wittbrodt and Dennis Molloy returned to the
meeting.

Statistical
Reporting

Kim Hubbard presented statistics for 1998 to the AC including ASN's issued,
transfers completed, total email received by IP group, new ISP requests,
phone calls received and other data. She stated that ARIN does not have
pre-ARIN logs of dates and times for all database transactions. She was
asked what percentage was auto-parsed and responded that it was probably
around 50%. She noted that most end-user requests lack merit and fail
to gain approval. Going forward, statistics will be kept up to date and
more information will be added as necessary. Ed Kern asked how much email
is automated and was told that the majority of what is automated is SWIPs.
The AC asked about response time to requests. Kim Hubbard commented that
ARIN can supply this information but it is not automated at this point.
An example was given where the response time could appear to be 43 days;
ARIN responded in two days and the customer took 41 days to respond to
our reply. Hilarie Orman asked how many emails ARIN received per month
and Kim answered that ARIN receives thousands of SWIPs. Hilarie Orman
also asked about the number of months between allocations. The average
number of months between allocations is 4.0702. John Klensin agreed to
stop by ARIN in the near future to help work on gathering and presenting
the statistics.

The
statistical reporting continued with the number of CIDR blocks issued
in 1998. The AC asked about the format of the report, specifically about
"other" allocations and whether or not they are filled from reserved space.
Kim Hubbard explained that the allocations result from fragments of larger
blocks. It was requested that the data also be presented graphically in
the future. Ed Kern asked to see a typical "other" allocation. Hilarie
Orman asked when the database conversion would be complete and Kim Hubbard
answered that it would be finished by late spring. She noted that ARIN
is also working on IPv6 and the routing registry. John Klensin stated
that he would like to get a brief explanation as to why certain requested
data cannot be made available. It was noted that the information presented
is a good start and the AC would like to have it continued. John Klensin
also asked about the number of allocations from reserved blocks and what
is the rate of growth in reserved blocks. John Curran commented that he
would like an explanation as to why the AC needs specific data. Hilarie
Orman responded that the general motivation was to track the effect of
allocation policy on the size of routing tables. A mini-committee comprised
of Cathy Wittbrodt, Hank Kilmer, and John Klensin was formed to further
discuss these issues and take them to the mailing list.

Bylaws
modifications

Samir Saad called in to participate in this portion of the meeting
via teleconference; however, Hilarie Orman noted that the bylaws prohibit
hybrid-media meetings. Alec Peterson referred to Article VIII, Section
5, which had also been mentioned at the October 7 teleconference. These
procedures still need to be explained in detail and finished. There was
a suggestion that AC work with a list of guidelines rather than always
trying to modify the bylaws. The AC would like to have 10% of a technical
writer's time to help formalize the descriptions of the AC procedures.

Cathy
Wittbrodt introduced a motion that the AC ask the Board to recommend draft
text for the portions of the bylaws that still need to be filled in by
the AC, but also noted that the AC may continue to suggest changes and
additions to the bylaws. Dave Whipple seconded this motion. In the vote
that followed, Michael Dillon abstained and the rest of the AC voted in
favor of this recommendation, which carried.

The
suggestion of having written guidelines for the AC was discussed in more
detail. Michael Dillon and Bill Darte volunteered to be on the subcommittee
to work with the guidelines. The proposed text will originate with the
Board. A table of contents will be produced within 30 days. A prioritized
list of documents to tackle is needed and guidance from the members is
desired. The commitment is to produce a single document draft.

Hilarie
Orman asked for a clarification of laws governing email voting. Dennis
Molloy, ARIN counsel, explained that the Commonwealth of Virginia had
passed a law on July 1, 1998 that went into effect September 1, 1998.
Under the new law, such votes must include every member of the voting
body and be unanimous; use of electronic identifiers or a digital signature
is mandatory. Hilarie Orman further asked for clarification of this rule
with respect to a previous bylaws modification allowing ARIN members to
vote via email. The clarification as explained by Dennis Molloy was that
elections are distinct from votes on issues under Virginia corporation
laws.

Several
AC members commented upon how much meeting time is still taken up with
procedural matters. Cathy Wittbrodt suggested that a regularly scheduled
monthly teleconference could help the AC remain current with ARIN issues.

Adjourned
for lunch at 12:05.

Internet
Governance

When the meeting resumed at 1:10 PM, Kim Hubbard asked whether
any AC members were following the progress of discussions on Internet
governance and had read the proposed bylaws for the new organization,
ICANN. Most of the AC is aware of this new organization and the considerable
influence it could have on ARIN. Kim will be meeting with RIPE and APNIC
and would like input from the AC regarding the Address Supporting Organization
(ASO). The registries will be submitting an application to the Board of
ICANN describing the ASO. John Klensin noted that now is the time to focus
on addresses, despite the fact that the current focal point is domain
names. The Names, Address and Protocol supporting organizations will provide
financial support for ICANN. The ASO will elect/select three representatives
to the Board of ICANN. Don Telage noted that the new corporation would
be incorporated in California, as it will be structured as a 501c(3) corporation.
Organizers are also applying for 501c(6) status, which would require a
membership structure of some kind.

The
discussion continued about ICANN and potential members. John Klensin mentioned
that there are some that believe that "everyone" who uses the Internet
should have a vote. Kim Hubbard said that there is a possibility that
the ASO will be a formal, incorporated organization in which case it would
require funding. Don Telage and others noted that Congress is becoming
progressively more engaged in these issues. Kim Hubbard suggested a model
with two tiers of membership that would include the regional registries
as the top tier and other general members in the second tier. Some AC
members expressed concern about the expense and overhead of supporting
additional organization. Ken Fockler said that it could be a virtual organization
that ties together everyone who has an interest.

Kim
Hubbard further noted that as ARIN, RIPE and APNIC already exist, the
ASO should connect these organizations together. If there is representational
voting, then there will need to be a way to account for the differences
in the number of memberships within the three registries. ARIN has 180
members and RIPE has 1100 members. Kim feels that the ASO needs to be
based on regional considerations, rather than by number of members. Michael
Dillon agreed with this view. It was suggested that perhaps AC members
could be the representatives from the ASO to the ICANN board. Kim Hubbard
will send out policy suggestions and thoughts to the AC mailing list for
feedback and comments. These must be received promptly before October
26th, as Kim Hubbard will be leaving on that date for the regional registry
meeting.

Transfers
of IP numbers and ASNs

John Klensin noted that large CIDR blocks can be split up when
companies split up into different entities. There has been a learning
experience dealing with the breakup of large companies into smaller ones.
This discussion will be continued on the mailing list.

IPv6
Policy

Kim informed the AC that ARIN has promised to allocate IPv6 space
by the first of the year. Only transit providers can receive IPv6 allocations
from a regional registry. Kim Hubbard will return to the AC with a draft
proposal following the meeting of the three registries during the last
week of October.

IPv6
fees

RIPE has decided not to charge separately for IPv6 allocations
if the requestor is already getting space from RIPE. Anyone who gets space
from RIPE is also a member. Only large providers will be getting this
space. IPv6 address allocations will have a slow start and it will be
rare to give out sub TLAs. It is hoped that address conservation will
push the allocation level down to NLAs. John Klensin stated that IPv6
allocations would require at least as much work as IPv4 allocations. The
suggestion was made that ARIN should, at the very least, charge on a cost
recovery basis. The AC asked Kim Hubbard to give a cost estimate and she
replied that the cost would change from year to year.

National
NICs

The Mexican NIC has approached ARIN and would like a reduction
in fees because it would like to offer lower costs to its members. Several
members asked if the IANA had given permission for a LatinNIC and the
answer was no. Giving lower fees would encourage others to try and form
national NICs. The two other regional registries have made it a policy
not to form National NICs. Discussion by the AC included suggestions to
make it easier to pay fees in foreign currency and also to work with the
IANA to develop policy for forming regional NIC's. The AC chose not to
make a recommendation regarding the Mexican NIC request.

ARIN
WHOIS information accessibility

Thus far, the Board has refused public access to the WHOIS database
in bulk. The AC was asked to consider if this information should be public,
not public at all, or public in a limited way? Discussion by the AC revolved
around concerns about the deduction of customer lists from the WHOIS database
information. Even research use was felt to risk exposure of sensitive
information. Hilarie Orman expressed regret that the AC could not find
a way to make limited information available to assist researchers. Dave
Whipple recommended that we not provide any bulk information. John Klensin
seconded this motion and all, with the exception of Hilarie Orman who
was opposed, were in favor of this recommendation, which carried.

The
topic of European privacy laws and regulations was introduced by John
Klensin. A decision was made to continue discussion of this topic on the
mailing list.

Michael
Dillon made a motion that the AC should discuss turning off wild card
access to the WHOIS database, take this issue before the members and,
at the next AC meeting make a recommendation. John Klensin seconded this
motion. In the vote that followed, three AC members, Alec Peterson, Hank
Kilmer and Hilarie Orman abstained and the rest were in favor of the motion.
The motion carried.

Maintenance
Fee for Grandfathered Records

ISPs obtaining allocations from ARIN currently pay a yearly subscription
fee that offsets the costs associated with record maintenance. End-users
also pay a small fee for this purpose. Many ISPs and end-users obtained
address space before ARIN began operations, and the holders of this space
use ARIN's services but do not pay ARIN. Kim Hubbard suggested that if
ARIN could charge for the grandfathered records, it might be possible
to reduce registration fees. This would entail finding and billing the
holders of legacy address space. Ed Kern asked what would happen to people
who didn't pay. While there was no ready answer to such a question Kim
Hubbard noted that one side benefit of this type of project might be progress
in cleaning up of the database and the possible retrieval of address space.
John Klensin stated that not all legacy holders are actively connected
to the Internet. As the discussion continued, John Curran posed two questions:
is there public interest in reclaiming space and is there a reason why
the holders of legacy address space should not pay? Jeremy Porter pointed
out that Bill Manning has been reclaiming space for years, indicating
that this can be done successfully. Hilarie Orman stated that if legacy
holders were suddenly billed for huge sums of money that they might not
be able to get budget authority for payment. Kim Hubbard would like an
opportunity to draft a proposal regarding the issue.

John
Klensin introduced a motion that ARIN institute a method of charging legacy
record holders on the same basis as existing record holders if they require
Inaddr services or record modification. Hilarie Orman seconded this recommendation
and all were in favor with the exception of Bill Darte, who was opposed.

Restructuring

Hilarie Orman commented that the AC might be more effective if
they operated in a different mode. John Klensin said that one solution
would be to expand the Board and have subcommittees that report to the
Executive Board. This might mitigate the problem of the AC is not being
available on short notice for input and decisions. Kim Hubbard asked how
much time the AC requires for responding to a request for a recommendation.
Bill Darte replied that the AC needs a good amount of time to respond
and should be utilized mainly for issues requiring reflection and advice.
Another suggestion was to add a full-time statistician, to the ARIN staff.
Don Telage said that the Board could raise issues and the AC could form
subcommittees that would work with the staff statistician. Cathy Wittbrodt
suggested that the format of the member meeting could be changed to include
working groups.

John
Curran will draft a document to delineate the roles of the AC and the
Board and formalize the communication path between the Board and the AC.

Hilarie
Orman mentioned that there are two items that have not been raised today.
The first is the handling of Karl Denninger's resignation. The AC wanted
to know why they did not receive notice of Karl's resignation in a prompt
manner. Kim stated that Karl had pre-dated his resignation and the date
on his resignation letter was a month earlier than the actual date Kim
received it. The second item not discussed at this meeting was the proposal
for changing the bylaws to reflect the procedure for filling an AC vacancy
due to resignation. The mailing list proposal was to allow a seat to remain
vacant if the resignation occurred with less than 6 months to run on the
term.

RIPE
response to minimum allocation

Alec Peterson will be giving a report from the AC at the members'
meeting October 16th.

It
was noted that ARIN and RIPE do allocations in a very different manner
from ARIN, and that these differences may have caused them to misunderstand
the purpose behind the AC's previous recommendation to allow /20 allocations.
Alec Peterson made a recommendation that the Board continue consideration
on the recommendation from the July 29 meeting that the maximum prefix
length be 19 bits and put on hold the recommendation that the minimum
allocation be lowered from a /19 to a /20. Dave Whipple seconded this
recommendation and in the vote that followed, Dave Whipple, Alec Peterson
and Cathy Wittbrodt voted in favor, while Michael Dillon and Hilarie Orman
opposed. All other members abstained. The motion failed to carry.

Schedule
next meeting

The AC requested that the next meeting be held in January 1999,
because December will be a busy month for other meetings, including IETF.